When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Click to expand...

Gee, that sounds like a fairly violent response.

There are two correct answers to the question asked:

1) after the fact when the victors get to make the new rules

2) when the state adopts violence, as states always claim a monopoly on the use of force.

Top Poster Of Month

If anything, I think it shows how extreme the rhetoric is getting. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain why your political opponent may be wrong. It is now necessary to demonize him, ridicule him and question his or her patriotism.
Once you have labeled your opposition as evil incarnate it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue. How can you ever make deals with someone you have publically labeled the devil?

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The Constitutional Convention option has never once been utilized, and we still have free elections along with mechanisms for recall for may elected offices. In general, violence should always be the option of last resort, and thankfully the Constitution provides for enough options that violence should never need be resorted to.

I'd also add, that even if YOU feel violence is justified, once you resort to violence you need to accept that there will be consequences to that, even if you do win. Which you probably won't. Once Violence is used as a means to an end, it makes violence and acceptable option whenever someone has a disagreement with you. A cycle of violence, once started, is almost impossible to stop.

Specifically, if you feel that things have deteriorated to the point that you think violence is justified against police or law enforcement, don't expect me to stand up for you when they outright kill your ass, if you'll pardon my French. Once you open fire on the police, you're pretty much dead and the argument is moot.

Top Poster Of Month

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

Click to expand...

If that happens, which it won't, I'd advocate refusing to comply/hiding your weapons and getting a lawyer. I'd definitely NOT advocate opening fire on the police. That's pretty much never an option, and once you go down that path you end up dead.

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.

Click to expand...

Is there? Is anyone less injured or dead if a private citizen calls for violence than when a politician does or vice versa?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!